Talk:The B-52s/Archive 1

Discography
I moved the discography to the main article. Did not like going to a second page to see their work. - Mirro_IL - 10-01-09
 * Uh, NO, the discography was moved to its own article and is not needed here. I'm afraid you're going to have to deal with an extra click to see it. - eo (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I believed that it would make it easier for users. -- Mirro_IL --Mirro IL (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Punk vs. New Wave
As an amateur punk historian (can you believe people do it professionally?) I find it impossible to reconcile the statement that the B-52's were "New Wave" from 1976. The First Wave hadn't started fully until 1977, and the second wave started in 1980. The New Wave didn't really get underway until 1982. So the assessment that they STARTED as New Wave in 1976 strikes me as a major anachronism. Yes, they SOUND like New Wave, and they did JOIN the New Wave, but that's because they were radical and influential. That would be like calling them Queercore - a music movement that didn't really get rolling until the 90s - just because they have queer-identified musicians among them. It's a bald-faced anachronism in my opinion, but I won't change it until someone else has spoken their peace. Anyone agree? Disagree? --75.151.116.105 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In the UK 'New Wave' wasn't used after ca. 1980 even though Americans used it through the whole of the 80s for any pop act with a synth. 1976 is too early for anyone to be 'New Wave' on either side of the Atlantic but by 1978 the B-52s were clearly 'New Wave'. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recordings with David Byrne
The citation that "recordings with David Byrne failed" needs some more detail. The Mesopotamia album which was produced by him had some great tracks according to some fans so "failed" needs to be defined (poor sales?) or re-written. Can anyone shed some light on this?
 * They were failed in that the project fell apart prematurely. It was intended as a full-length album, but released as a 6 song EP.

NPOV
Recent edits have left this article heavily non NPOV ("at their best," "weird," etc...) Am fixing it now... Pacian 12:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Off topic comments
The bit about the B-52's food choices (being vegetarian) seems out of place in an article that deals exclusively with the band and their musical endeavors. I removed the comment.

Apostrophe
There should not be an apostrophe in the title, because that is only used for possession or contractions, not plurals.

Example: I have two dog's. (Wrong) My dog's fur is brown. (Right) --anon


 * But the apostrophe is in the name of the band. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I love Eats, Shoots & Leaves, the apostraphe is most definitely in the name of the band. You can see it quite clearly on the album images. So, while not grammatically correct, it is accurate. Plus, if it is changed here, it should be changed on all of the album pages, too. GentlemanGhost 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The apostrophe has been dropped from the band's name, it seems. The new album, the new official site, and the new single cover all read "The B-52s."Frogacuda (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the B-52s finally got a grammar lesson. Much as I love their music, as others have noted, there should never have been an apostrophe in their name (though I agree with those who have noted that in the case of the article name, the apostrophe is correct since it was in the band's name). Now if only the Go-Go's would get the same lesson. Anyhow, now that the B-52s have apparently acknowledged that their name was grammatically incorrect and have rectified it in the materials for the new album, shouldn't Wikipedia follow suit? I know that the article says both spellings are essentially correct for various reasons, which I don't dispute, I do think that since the grammatically correct spelling is now a "correct" option as far as the band is concerned, that it should be the spelling we encourage. 75.66.9.184 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody feel like changing the title now?76.102.87.195 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of the apostrophe here is not incorrect, as attested by numerous sources in our own article, Apostrophe: "An apostrophe is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols where adding just s rather than 's may leave things ambiguous or inelegant." It is a common misbelief that this is an error akin to the greengrocer's comma; in this case, it makes it clearer that the alphanumeric band name is pronounced bee-fifty-twos rather than bee-fifty-two-ess or bee-five-two-ess. I have removed the editorializing from the text.  Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that note. The apostrohe is not incorrect, it is used because the band name has numbers, is alphanumeric. In my opinion the article name must be reverted to The B-52's, it is the band name used in 98% of all instances. It is the main spelling of their main carreer, used consequently. The band has not changed its name.(E-Kartoffel (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree that the article needs to be named "The B-52's", but the issue of using the apostrophe in the body of the article hasn't directly been addressed on the talk page. My thought is that the apostrophe really should be in the name with the exception of discussing post-2008 items; at a minimum, I find it jarring that the "Formation and early years" section anachronistically lacks the apostrophe, and am going to change that momentarily. --CAVincent (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Okay, I think I caught everything, and the article now consistently uses "B-52's" except one mention in the intro and in the "Funplex and continued touring" section; in both places the dropping of the apostrophe is explained, making the transition smooth. Additional note, should anyone wish to start removing apostrophes, please be careful not to change citations where it is indeed used; I caught one reference book incorrectly missing the apostrophe. --CAVincent (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Syd Barrett influence ???
Hmmm, honestly I cant see any reason to put in the body of the article such influence on Wilson's guitar style. Barrett himself resembles an older band, The Shadows, in many cases. Furthermore, Barrett's harmonies are still too linked to blues, instead Ricky Wilson's chords are very far from bluesy styles, and the same applies to most of New wave era guitarists. Maybe I would put this comment just at the end, as a note, if other WPs agree  Brian Wilson 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * -- Hmm. Its plausible though. I mean you can hear a barrett influence in the band, and barrett had an influence on the later punk movement that theres a borderline argument that the B-52s where on the periphery of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.243.116 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 July 2009

Eh, Barrett was hardly all that influential to punk music. Perhaps on the Neo-psych brand of alternative/college rock, yes, but punk? Punk was pretty antithetic to 60s-style rock. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chart positions
uk chart positions by and large made up: correct ones are rock lobster (reissue), love shack, roam, good stuff, meet the flinstones... rest are dubious {anonymous post}

This article would benefit from listing the band's Top 10 singles in countries other than UK & US. "Love Shack" for example hit #1 in Australia in 1990. --Design 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shark origin for "Give Me Back My Man"?
I've now twice reverted the following statement added by B52sfan and 24.3.63.135: "The lyrics to the song "Give Me Back My Man" were written by member Cindy Wilson as an emotional plea after losing her boyfriend of 4 years to a shark attack." The source given is a comment on a lyrics page, which is supported 3 minutes after posting by another commenter, both of which were done shortly before being added to Wikipedia. This doesn't seem to me to meet the requirements of a Verifible, Reliable Source. My google search comes up with nothing backing this up. I find it implausible that this a) happened given the infrequency of Shark attack, and b) if it did happen, Google has nothing on it. Looking to see if there's a consensus if this statement should be in or out of the article. - Fordan (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement is gone now, so presumably you removed it, which is good.


 * I have heard that the lyrics are sung from the point of view of a fictional woman who has lost their boyfriend to a shark. The Give Me Back My Man page includes that story.  Is there substantiation for this? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

'Lush' harmonies?
IIRC, most of the vocal work was not lush harmony, but a lot of unison singing having a double-track effect (whether by double tracking or just by the character of the united voices I don't know). There were harmonies in places, but still not 'lush'... compare with Crosby Stills Nash and Young, The Beatles' Nowhere Man, Throwing Muses etc... those have 'lush' harmonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.68.15.100 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Private Idaho" was on their second album
This article lists "Private Idaho" as a hit from their 1st album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.106.11 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The album had greater success overseas, especially in Australia, where it hit #7 on the back of three hit singles: "Planet Claire" (#43), "Rock Lobster" (#3) and "Private Idaho" (#11).

Advertisement Language
"As of 2006 the B-52's continue to perform, electrifying audiences with their quirky, innovative style and lush vocals" could come straight out of an advertisement...while I think it is correct, that's likely because I'm a fan. Since band pages are generally edited by fans, do we really want them *all* to read like ads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.71.50 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No Independent "Sun Donuts" References
I have searched the Internet for any independent references that Kate Pierson was in a band called the "Sun Donuts" prior to 1977, but have been unable to find any. Google search results show text that duplicates the text on a number of sites from the Side projects, solo albums and collaborations section of this article; so it is safe to assume that the other sites have simply copied the text from Wikipedia. Further, the 2002 book "The B-52's Universe: The Essential Guide to the World's Greatest Party Band" by Mats Sexton makes no mention that Kate Pierson ever performed in a band called "Sun Donuts" prior to helping to form The B-52's. Hence, I believe it would be best to remove the unreferenced listing for Kate Pierson participating in a band called "Sun Donuts" until independent references can be provided. Mh29255 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pierson has mentioned the band in numerous interviews, such as this one. Ravenclaw (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nose cone?
The B-52 bomber nose does not have a hole in it. Gigs (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Miscellanea

 * They were a favourite band of John Lennon's in 1980.
 * In the liner notes for a greatest hits album for Parliament Funkadelic, the musicians describe the B-52's as "P-Funk for white people."
 * Some models of the Amiga computer had the name of a B-52's song written on their motherboard. For example, the Amiga 500 had "B52/ROCK LOBSTER" written on it.
 * Drag artist RuPaul appeared in the music videos for "Love Shack," "Good Stuff," and "Funplex."

Camp
Is the B-52's an example of Camp (style) in music? They are heavily influenced by Camp in their live performances, it seems. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Start vs. B
Per a request on my talk page, I will explain why I've changed the class of this article from B to Start. It is still a Start, although a much higher one than it was before. I do assessment for three WikiProjects, so I know a B-class article when I see one, and this one just isn't there yet. A B-class article is one step below being a GA. This article needs more comprehensive sourcing (there are entire sections and paragraphs without even one; not everything needs to be sourced, but more than the present is required), the lead is insufficient, there are sections in list form that should be in prose, the references need to be formatted (Template:cite web), most of the sources are from the IMDB (which is not reliable and should be switched out), and a lot of the paragraphs are short and choppy. Nikki 311  22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs to indulge in a revert. If this is Start then so is Danger Mouse and Monica (singer) and some other B-class Georgia articles--downgrade those too. Every deficiency you mention is allowed under class B. I am sick of people "Stub"-ing Start articles and "Start"-ing B and better articles while trash gets posted as FA. Quality of refs, like upgrading from IMDB, is the type of revision that gets done from B to A. Also, reliability of various online sources is highly debatable, not a given, and should take place during the GA review process (where you will find lots of this kind of discussion). For example, it is quite possible that IMDB is a good source for the particular media references it is used for here. Basically, a Start article is only a skeleton, a structured outline with a preliminary level of summary information. A "B" article has the "flesh on the bones", most of the in-depth detail and background, but still needs to be refined through several revisions before it is quite "done". B is a very broad range of article quality; you should think of the B-52's as perhaps being nearer the lower end of that range than you personally would prefer, but it's a mistake to think that all B articles have to be "just a hair" away from A status.Rep07 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I just disagree with you. Danger Mouse and Monica should stay at B, because in addition to being broad in coverage, almost every paragraph has at least one (quality) citation. Each WikiProject has different standards, and those are the standards at WikiProject Georgia, and that is what all of the articles are assessed by. Also, an A-class article is a step above GA, and I never said a B-article had to be a "step below A". I did, however, state that it should be a "step below GA", and I stand by that. While you are are right when it comes to article coverage and classifications, article sourcing is just as important, if not more important. If it bothers you that much having this article rated at Start, find some sources and add them to the article...it shouldn't be that hard, as they are very well known. Also, if you'd like, I know another user who does a lot of assessment for WikiProject Georgia, and I can get him to drop by and state his opinion on the matter. Nikki  311  02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Danger Mouse is glaringly less detailed than the B-52's, and there are plenty of unsourced paras in it. You seem to like the superficial appearance of "evenly sprinkled footnotes" rather than the reality of a growing (but not necessarily complete or evenly distributed) B level of sourcing. Monica (singer) has a blank where the main photo is supposed to be--how is that higher class than this article?? This belies the idea that "Georgia has higher standards". The standard you invoke is not the standard explicitly stated in the Georgia quality scale table--it is your personal standard, and that is not appropriate. This article does meet the specific, community B standards stated in black and white on the project quality scale page. "Almost GA" articles are mentioned at the end there as one of the article states that belong in B--not the only state. Yes, it would be nice to have someone objective look at the ratings of these three articles and comment, but I'm not sure one of your pals is the right person to do that fairly. I want this at B to recognize the enormous work that some dedicated people have obviously put into this better-than-average, working draft article. No good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia.Rep07 (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Start class - It's actually quite a bit of a mess. None of the footnotes are formatted correctly using the Cite web, or Citation, templates. There are long lists of events which should probably be converted to prose. I've noticed lots of problems with the prose, and the flow isn't very good either. Instead of using all your time/effort to explain to us why it should be B-Class, why not get working on the article? — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 08:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the history list before you babble. And watch your tone. Rep07 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a line that is still there in the start about their first London gig at the Lyceum in the summer of 1979. My primary source is my own vivid wild recollection, which I have seen echoed in a long lost edition of the NME - I think Nick Kent wrote the review. I was a pop crazed 15 year old who queued up at the Lyceum as soon as the tickets went on sale, also in the queue was an evangelical female New York fan who said the crowds in America just went crazy for them. The gig was full of people who were either famous or looked as if they should be famous. I am sure it wasn't just Joe Jackson and Green Gartside who were there. But they were the only names I spotted. The B-52s were great that night, very theatrical.Goldgreen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

"...the best, most awesome B-52s song of all time"
I came across the followng, in the "Mainstream Success" portion of the article: That peak was matched in early 1990 when "Roam," the best, most awesome B-52s song of all-time, also hit number three. I know I should have deleted it, or rephrased it, for its complete lact of objectivity, but honestly I was just laughing too hard!

I think the best B-52s song is Shiny Happy People by R.E.M. - listen to that and try and convince yourself it's not the B52s, it's not easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.175.206 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Hiatus
The last sentence of one paragraph says the band took a three year hiatus after Ricky Wilson died. The first sentence of the next paragraph says it was two years. Is anyone sure of which it was? Mfwills (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The band recorded "Bouncing Off The Satellites" in 1985-6, they promoted it on UK television in 1987, there is a video for "Girl From Ipanema Goes To Greenland" also made at this time, and the band were together working on "Cosmic Thing" in 1988. Any hiatus was maximum 1.5 years. -locklor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locklor (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Foxy
Gosh Cindy Wilson and Kate Pierson were foxy back in 1990, the Roam period. Who wields me, wields the world! (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The B-52s → The B-52's – It is the spelling consistently used thoughout their main career. See Apostrophe section. The article was renamed under the incorrect assumption that the spelling The B-52's would be wrong orthography E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The spelling is also used by other sources such as Billboard magazine.  Note that the album is already at The B-52's (album).  —  AjaxSmack   01:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reads like promotional material or ad copy
"Presenting themselves as a positive, enthusiastic, slightly oddball party band, the B-52's tell tall tales, glorify wild youth, and celebrate wild romance."

What's it doing in an encyclopedia? Looks like PR to me.66.68.80.64 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)